The Mythical Lincoln

[SnowFire]

But Lincoln fought for coercion, for exploitation, for another form of slavery. All he deserves is my contempt.

Remember your Lincoln-Douglas debates. Douglas pointed out that sometimes the conditions for factory workers in the north was worse than that of slaves. Lincoln agreed, but there was one big difference, you see: a factory worker can go up to the foreman and say "I quit." A slave can't do that.

Also, remember your Marx. Capitalism is more advanced than feudalism. If you dislike capitalism, fine. But somebody who argues for the emancipation of slaves but not the basic equality of women, while someone not worthy of much respect today, might be quite respectable in 1000 BC and ahead of their time. In modern times, I wouldn't be real happy about somebody arresting the governer of Maryland without a trial, either. But taken in context...

As for federalism, well, ya got me there. Lincoln was the supporter of the stronger government. But I wouldn't hold up the CSA as any great anarchist paradise, either.

The difference is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Yes, and you responded to the question of the Supreme Law of the Land being a monarch's whim by saying we were ignoring the difference between democracy/republic and monarchy. PRECISELY! We were ignoring that. So why were you being so sillily & blindly legalistic? You have to take into account lots of things when considering whether a law is just or unjust, and then furthermore, whether an unjust law is worth fighting over, and how. There are lots of unjust laws I disagree with today, but believe aren't worth disrupting law & order over. Also, in our modern system we have universal suffrage, meaning we don't have to worry about any vestiges of monarchy, where somebody else rules over you just because. This was less true in Civil War times.

So then you'd have no problem with a violent revolt against gun control, then, I take it?

If you honestly believed that gun control was a great evil that needed to be overthrown, even at the cost of a civil war, so be it, I suppose. Disagreeing with you, I'd support the efforts of the army to put you down.

Much the same as slavery, I suppose.

Lincoln

Getting back on topic, let me just say that I will line up and say that I believe that Lincoln is a complex man, but on the whole, still a great one. He was almost always very strongly against slavery, ever since he visisted the South. I have absolutely no question of that in my head. It was BECAUSE he held to the Constitution, DF, that he didn't campaign on a platform of abolition in 1860, and why he delayed on abolition. Not opportunism. He was also a firm federalist, so yes, if you hate a real government, then you have good reasont to dislike him.

Don't believe me? Read some of Lincoln's own writings. I'm sure you can quote me lots of things that would contradict what I just said, and I'm sure I could dig up things that contradict what I said, but it's not going to work anymore. I used to think this of Lincoln because that's what history books said and that's the impression I got, but now I'm sure, and not changing my mind, because I actually read the man. And that's the best way to get a handle on what he thought, pure and simple.

Fort Barrancas
As a lieutenant without orders,

MtG... some issues with this. First of all, I distinctly you remember not making a big deal of this at first, and IIRC somebody else told the story about this to you. What does the fact that somebody as well-read as you had never heard about Ft. Barrancas until recently say about the events that occurred there (my apologies if this is inaccurate)? Not to mention that massive number of Confederate sympathizers who've been around this past century. If this was really some kind of proof about the North's aggression in the war- a main claim of the South- don't you think they'd have made more of a deal about it?

Secondly, I did a bit of work in Google, and I can't find anything on this. All that anybody says is that the men at the fort withdrew to Ft. Pickens, which stood the rest of the war. The only thing I could find on the actual incident that made the commander pack up was this:

Despite its dilapidated condition, Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer, who was in charge of United States forces at Fort Barrancas, determined that Pickens was more defensible than any of the other posts in the area. His decision to abandon Barrancas was hastened when, around midnight of January 8, 1861, his guards repelled a group of men intending to take the fort. Some historians note that this could be considered the first shots fired by United States forces in the Civil War.

Very vauge. What were the assaulters doing? Were they armed? How many were there? Did some guy take a rifle and fire some warning shots into the air, or were they shooting to kill? At what range did this all occur? Was there any talking involved? There weren't that many people here either, not that many witnesses.

It's possible that what you said occurred, but the Mists of Time have done a number on this incident. More to the point, it seems like nobody cared back then either. Apperantly the Floridians who did this little scouting missions did not go back terribly annoyed about this incident and make a huge fuss. Why didn't they? We don't know. But they might have had a good reason. And as pointed out, Buchanan was president at the time.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this seems at most a historical footnote that it would be very difficult to base a serious argument off of.

Berzerker: Har har. So you believe new information if it fits your view of the world, but not otherwise?

[Berzerker]

Orange -

To me this isn't about the draft. I disagree with the draft, but I am proud of the US entrance into World War II, and if that is liberating people from a moral evil, than so be it.

Comparing the South to Nazi Germany ignores that the South did not attack or invade the North (and I don't consider Ft Sumter an attack) nor did it engage in genocide.

No I understand what you're saying. You're saying that as a black slave you wouldn't want to know that 600,000 people were being violently killed for your own freedom.

Oh, as a slave of any color, and knowing would be important because I would be extremely grateful. But requiring those people to die for my freedom is what I oppose.

However, the slaves are not responsible for this war and should not have blame forced on them.

I never blamed the slaves, I blame Lincoln. I believe there were relatively peaceful and voluntary means of ending slavery.

I say that if anyone should be blamed, it's the south for allowing slavery to exist. They allowed the anger to be built up among its people (slaves).

The bloodshed resulted from Lincoln's actions.

DinoDoc -

You were the one calling him a war criminal. I was merely asking the basis for that assertion.

I didn't accuse Sherman of being a war criminal, I said he engaged in total war.

Strangelove -

Boy, you guys certainly don't know your US history!

Coming from someone who thinks the US can just go around the world plopping embassies down without permission from the host countries, your opinion about how much we know is problematic.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Strangelove -

Coming from someone who thinks the US can just go around the world plopping embassies down without permission from the host countries, your opinion about how much we know is problematic.

What if the embassy was built previously? Throughout the ages new governments that have summarily seized property bought and paid for by extra-nationals have often found that such acts land them in a war. The southerners didn't complain when American money paid for the construction of the forts and arsenals. They hadn't contested the right of the federal government to build and maintain the structures previously. In most cases they didn't ask before laying claim to the properties, they just seized them.

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: Thank you Strangelove

Originally posted by GePap
Well, thanks to Strangelove for making such an authoritative and elloquent argument vs. the forces of Southern revisionism and for providing Primary documentation to back him up. I wonder if any of Abe's opponents will be able to come up with their own Primary documentation to make a worthwhile counter-argument. Otherwise, we might be done here.

In your dreams and mine.

[Berzerker]

Snowfire -

It was BECAUSE he held to the Constitution, DF, that he didn't campaign on a platform of abolition in 1860, and why he delayed on abolition. Not opportunism. He was also a firm federalist, so yes, if you hate a real government, then you have good reasont to dislike him

Lincoln a federalist? You've got to be kidding! Where in the Constitution does it say states could not secede or that some states/Congress could violently prevent others from seceding?

Berzerker: Har har. So you believe new information if it fits your view of the world, but not otherwise?

When I learned S Carolina militia fired on Ft Sumter, I accepted it. Did that "new" information fit my world view? When I learned the Civil War was over slavery and accepted it, did that fit my world view? Does the fact I now accept evidence to the contrary mean I was intellectually dishonest for accepting the previous explanation? I accepted the information provided by MtG because he is usually quite knowledgeable. It appears he may have been wrong, but the rebuttal came after his post and my acceptance of it. Are you suggesting you have never believed potentially false information to be true before learning more information? Your accusation of being intellectually dishonest is unsupported and hypocritical.

[Ramo]

Remember your Lincoln-Douglas debates. Douglas pointed out that sometimes the conditions for factory workers in the north was worse than that of slaves. Lincoln agreed, but there was one big difference, you see: a factory worker can go up to the foreman and say "I quit." A slave can't do that.

I was actually referring to the tarriff, corporate subsidies, and other mercantilistic practices.

But I wouldn't hold up the CSA as any great anarchist paradise, either.

Of course not. I also only have contempt for Davis and the other Confederate leaders.

As an answer your question, there weren't a sufficient number of slave owners in California at the time when California asked to join the Union. The trek across the continent was too long and expensive to haul slaves across, particularily when you were going to pan for gold when you got to the other side. In Kansas about 30% of the population supported slavery, enough to make a formidable force, but not enough to contest a referrendum.

Fair enough.

But what of the other Western territories? Surely it isn't that great a journey from East Texas to New Mexico.

My point is that if this issue were so important by itself, why the hell didn't they put any effort into it?

Slavery or nonslavery in the territories, by itself, wasn't that important. But the implication is groundshattering. It determines whether the state becomes dominated by agricultural or industrial interests.

In brief, the Missouri Compromise was established precisely to allow California admission into the Union.

And what concession did the South gain from the deal? The Fugative Slave Act! That's it! This should be rather indicative of the amount the South really cared about slavery in the territories.

Southerners then felt clearly outnumbered, even though their faction would still have been able to block any Constitutional admendemt interfering with their right to own slaves. Face it, paranoia ran rampant through the South in those days. Perhaps it was fueled by guilt.

And the tarriff was an infinitely more realistic fear. Ending parity in the Senate means that the North no longer had to compromise on tarriffs. It could get almost anything it wanted.

In each speech and letter there is a preoccupation with the perception that the spread of anti-slavery sentiment was a threat to the southern way of life.

Which is an effective rallying cry. Creating scapegoats makes your rule a whole lot easier.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Comparing the South to Nazi Germany ignores that the South did not... engage in genocide.

Man, you crack me up!

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

What if the embassy was built previously?

Previously to what? Permission to build an embassy? If we didn't have permission, then we weren't "empowered" to build and keep it. You argued we were empowered to build and keep embassies regardless of whether or not we had permission.

Throughout the ages new governments that have summarily seized property bought and paid for by extra-nationals have often found that such acts land them in a war.

Name one. We've never gone to war because our embassy people were told to get out.

The southerners didn't complain when American money paid for the construction of the forts and arsenals.

And before seceding, they offered to pay for them. But that still doesn't mean the Congress has the authority to keep and maintain US facilities in countries that don't want us there.

They hadn't contested the right of the federal government to build and maintain the structures previously.

Permission may be withdrawn. Does this mean China must forever allow the US to maintain an embassy there? Of course not.

In most cases they didn't ask before laying claim to the properties, they just seized them.

Which is the right of a sovereign nation that wants US personnel out of their country. And the CSA did ask, they even offered to buy the facilities.

[SnowFire]

Your accusation of being intellectually dishonest is unsupported and hypocritical.

... and sarcastic, as well. Note the har har.

[Berzerker]

Guynemer -

Man, you crack me up!

You were cracked up long before ever coming here.

[Berzerker]

... and sarcastic, as well. Note the har har.

Laughing is not sarcasm, check Strangelove's posts for examples of sarcasm.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Which is an effective rallying cry. Creating scapegoats makes your rule a whole lot easier.

Exactly. Neither the South or the North wanted to tell the people who would end up fighting their war that is was primarily over tariffs. Both sides tried to put a better face on the reasons for the war. Citing this propaganda to put forth the argument that the real reasons for the war were not ulterior is to make "honest" people out of the propagandists.

[orange]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker
Orange -

Comparing the South to Nazi Germany ignores that the South did not attack or invade the North (and I don't consider Ft Sumter an attack) nor did it engage in genocide.

That's it, I've had enough of you twisting everything I say around. I was giving an example of how, even though I oppose the draft, I am not against what it has brought about in history in some cases.

No one compared the South to Nazi Germany, and certainly not me, so piss off.

Oh, as a slave of any color, and knowing would be important because I would be extremely grateful. But requiring those people to die for my freedom is what I oppose.

That's fine, but they didn't exactly have a choice in the matter now did they?

I never blamed the slaves, I blame Lincoln. I believe there were relatively peaceful and voluntary means of ending slavery.

Maybe so, and maybe not. The people on your side of the argument yell at us for trying to predict where the world would have been without the war, so please don't you do it either.

The bloodshed resulted from Lincoln's actions.

And I say Lincoln's actions resulted from slavery.

[GePap]

Any sources

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ramo -

Exactly. Neither the South or the North wanted to tell the people who would end up fighting their war that is was primarily over tariffs. Both sides tried to put a better face on the reasons for the war. Citing this propaganda to put forth the argument that the real reasons for the war were not ulterior is to make "honest" people out of the propagandists.

Berzerker:
I was just wondering: Do you have any evidence, primary sources from either north or south, secondary sources, hell, thirdhand sources in some nationally recognized textbook, a bazooka Joe comic, anything, to back any of the assetions you have made? Perhaps some quotes from famous jurists or philosophers to back you legalistic claims? Any quotes from economic historians to back up your claim?
I know I have a bias, but I also like evidence- and Strangelove has been kind enough to provide some. I was just wondering if you will ever get to that?...

[SnowFire]

Berk: From what I understand it, Ramo was pointing out that the Southern masters tried to redirect blame for their mismanagement to anti-slavery protesters. Much like people today say "Wait! It's not our fault! It's the evil commies/homosexuals/fundamentalist/whatever people!" This I agree with.

However, to say that the war was fought for different reasons... no, I've been through this already. Let's just say that while tariffs may have been a small part of it, an underlying factor, whatever, slavery was THE issue of the war, and thinking otherwise is nuts. If you think tariffs set the foundations, fine; I don't care about underlying reasons. It might all have been a plot by the Martians using their mind control rays and the Civil War was REALLY fought to insure the Martian mines in Canada went undiscovered and the Martians knew that without a strong unified USA the Canadians would rapidly conquer the world. I don't care. The actual personalities involved in the war, from grunts to politicians, knew/thought at least to some degree the war was about slavery, and that's what is important, "real" causes in the background be darned.